I needed a diversion so I came here for an hour.

subllibrm said:
If you're investigated and there is not enough evidence to bring charges your name is not released. So it's entirely possible that the prosecutors chose to not file charges. Doing so doesn't mean they weren't investigated. In fact it means they were and the investigation didn't reveal enough evidence to warrant a trial that the prosecution couldn't win.
Click to expand...
Therefore, he was wrongly convicted of having a sex trafficking network?
 
Dr. Duck said:
Interesting indeed. I feel like I’m back in that logic philosophy class from so long ago. Perhaps Bruh would have been best served by stating that he thinks there’s a government coverup rather than stating there is a government coverup.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Epstein was wrongfully convicted of having a network with sex trafficking?

Network implies others were involved and he was convicted of this crime.
 
Bruh said:
Are you saying that Epstein was wrongfully convicted of having a network with sex trafficking?

Network implies others were involved and he was convicted of this crime.
Click to expand...
Nope, I’m saying I’m not convinced there’s a massive governmental coverup of his former network. After all, he did go to prison.
 
Bruh said:
Are you saying that Epstein was wrongfully convicted of having a network with sex trafficking?
Click to expand...

Duh has now pivoted to a second motte. Instead of defendng his claim of a government coverup of Epstein's sex-trafficking network, he's pivoted to the self-evident one that Epstein conspired with others.
 
Dr. Duck said:
Nope, I’m saying I’m not convinced there’s a massive governmental coverup of his former network. After all, he did go to prison.
Click to expand...
And no one within the network?
I’m trying to understand where everyone is coming from.
 
Ransom said:
Who are they, he asked again, fully expecting no answer.
Click to expand...
Ok, we both agree that we have no clue who the others are. Do I understand you correctly?

Do we agree that there are others due to Epstein being convicted of having the network? Or no?
 
Ransom said:
Duh has now pivoted to a second motte. Instead of defendng his claim of a government coverup of Epstein's sex-trafficking network, he's pivoted to the self-evident one that Epstein conspired with others.
Click to expand...
Ok he conspired with others we agree?

Because there are others and none as far as we know have not been investigated and arrested. Do we agree here?
 
Bruh said:
Because there are others and none as far as we know have not been investigated and arrested. Do we agree here?
Click to expand...

But your argument was not merely that there's no investigation that we know of. You started specifically by saying the government was covering up the network. That's not an absence of knowledge. That's supposed positive knowledge that due to nefarious purposes, there is no investigation.

Once again ... prove it.
 
Bruh said:
Therefore, he was wrongly convicted of having a sex trafficking network?
Click to expand...
More likely that, while enough evidence existed to convict him, such was not the case for other suspects.
 
Last edited:
Bruh said:
Are you saying that Epstein was wrongfully convicted of having a network with sex trafficking?

Network implies others were involved and he was convicted of this crime.
Click to expand...
The beauty of our legal system is that we are tried as an individual. We do not prosecute "networks" but individuals who have been charged with a crime.

Back in 2020 when the morons in Northern Michigan were arrested for plotting against Governor Whitmer, there were separate trials for different individuals with different outcomes. They could easily be described as a network but again we don't prosecute groups. Be thankful that we don't.
 
From what I’ve read, most of the trafficking took place with subjects from Europe and the Caribbean. The US government can’t just start extraditing people from around the world. Every country has different laws and regardless, convictions need to be probable to even begin going down that road. Just a few questions to be considered:

* Did the crime occur in the United States or abroad?

* Can the witness(es) be traced and convinced to appear in a U.S. court?

* Who has jurisdiction?

* Epstein is deceased. How do we corroborate evidence now?

* Etc. (Way TMTT)
 
Dr. Duck said:
Nope, I’m saying I’m not convinced there’s a massive governmental coverup of his former network. After all, he did go to prison.
Click to expand...
His victims disagree.




Several victims, in letters from their lawyers, have balked at the department’s approach, saying it “smacks of a cover up,” calling aspects of it “cowardly,” and arguing that it demonstrates the Trump administration considers the victims “at best, an afterthought.”​
 
Ransom said:
But your argument was not merely that there's no investigation that we know of. You started specifically by saying the government was covering up the network. That's not an absence of knowledge. That's supposed positive knowledge that due to nefarious purposes, there is no investigation.

Once again ... prove it.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, no investigation into anyone in the network proves a coverup.

That’s just common sense.
 
subllibrm said:
More likely that, while enough evidence existed to convict him, such was not the case for other suspects.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry I’m not trying to be disrespectful….,,,but……wow. I’m actually speechless because I guess I didn’t realize how much people believe what our government says.

I’m reading all of this not only yours but all of these from today to my wife and she doesn’t understand everyone’s responses.

To be clear, she’s a school teacher so she definitely has a much higher IQ than I do. 😝 And she reads all the time :-)
 
Dr. Duck said:
From what I’ve read, most of the trafficking took place with subjects from Europe and the Caribbean. The US government can’t just start extraditing people from around the world. Every country has different laws and regardless, convictions need to be probable to even begin going down that road. Just a few questions to be considered:

* Did the crime occur in the United States or abroad?

* Can the witness(es) be traced and convinced to appear in a U.S. court?

* Who has jurisdiction?

* Epstein is deceased. How do we corroborate evidence now?

* Etc. (Way TMTT)
Click to expand...
If it happened over seas then our government needs to say that to clear their name.
 
Bruh said:
In my opinion, no investigation into anyone in the network proves a coverup.

That’s just common sense.
Click to expand...

Maybe there's insufficient evidence to warrant the investigation.

Maybe there is an investigation but They aren't making it public so the subjects of the investigation don't flee for Cuba.

No, of course "common sense" is that 23 million government employees, across three different administrations, are conspiring to protect pedophiles.

LOL. :ROFLMAO:
 
Ransom said:
Maybe there's insufficient evidence to warrant the investigation.

Maybe there is an investigation but They aren't making it public so the subjects of the investigation don't flee for Cuba.

No, of course "common sense" is that 23 million government employees, across three different administrations, are conspiring to protect pedophiles.

LOL. :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Maybe there’s insufficient evidence to warrant an investigation into someone like Nancy Pelosi and others in the government that become multi millionaires after getting into a government role, right?

Gotta be consistent in our thought process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top